Chammas Article

@PrattenParkMagpie...your username carries real weight.
Pratten Park is sacred ground to many of us.
It's where Magpies history breathes deepest.
So it's curious that you wear the name but generally reject the identity that gave it meaning.

Wests Magpies didn't disappear...they evolved into the JV and still field a side, invest in development, and carry 90% of the ownership.
It's not just heritage...it's current contribution.

Wearing the name Magpie and watching the NSW Cup team rise, surely there's room to acknowledge the black and white DNA that still pulses through the system.
Supporting visibility for Wests isn't about rejecting progress--it's about recognising the roots that let anything grow.

Just seems to me...if you stand at Pratten Park, the echoes aren't Balmain's.
They're Wests Magpies.
 
Last edited:
BZN said:
cochise, you say the Magpies "died" 25 years ago.
But the truth is, Wests didn't fold--they entered a joint venture, and they remain a living, contributing force.
They field a team, invest in development, and hold a 90% stake in the Wests Tigers brand.
That's not ghost-chasing, that's factual governance.

You may reject the emblem as others on here have, but you can't reject the contribution.
The Magpies haven't asked for dominance.
They've asked for visibility.
That's not romanticism, it's proportional respect.

And here's the point most often avoided...we don't strengthen identity by amputating legacy.
We build it by honouring both sides of the bloodline.
Wests Tigers isn't born from marketing, it's born from a partnership, no matter how lopsided things have become.

Calling calls for balance 'embarrassing' doesn't erase their merit. It just proves that some still prefer the comfort of a simplified narrative over facing the complexity of a shared foundation.

A Magpies win in the NSW Cup isn't just symbolic, it's alive.
And if that still matters to people, even those quietly cheering, it's time we acknowledged that one side of this partnership hasn't disappeared.
It's just wanting and needing to be seen.

This isn't about nostalgia.
It's about ownership, contribution, and visibility.
You don't build a future by ghosting your foundation.

The Magpies didn't die; they evolved.
And while some may cheer louder for the brand than the bloodline, I'll keep standing where history, pride, and progress meet...in Black and White

WHERE THE ⬛⬜ MAGPIE WATCHTOWER ⬜⬛ STANDS, ERASURE FALLS SHORT.
Black and white runs deep.
The past isn't holding us back---it's holding us up.
Click to expand...
What do you think is needed to achieve proportional respect BZN?
 
BZN said:
Cochise...if my feelings are "complete and utter nonsense" then perhaps we see emotion differently.

What you might call clinging, others might call CARING.
I don't carry pitchforks...I carry stories, memories, and a sense of pride that refuses to be quietly shelved.

Lidcombe isn't just a place where footy happens, it's where identity still shows up in black and white, waving thru the crowd.

I have never said "I want the Magpies back" as you have claimed.
What I have said is that the Magpies never truly left.
They're still woven into the JV financially, culturally and structurally.
Wanting visibility for a 90% stakeholder isn't nostalgia...it's logic.
If you feel my posts are saturated with Magpie DNA, that's because I've lived that legacy, and I believe a joint venture should reflect joint heritage.

If you hadn't come at me with both barrels from my 1st post, I might have seen your trips to Lidcombe in a more generous light.
But let's be honest, watching the Magpies while waving the "just move on" banner is a bit like attending ANZAC Day and asking people to forget about history.

The irony is, Balmain loyalists still get to hold on to the Tiger name and colours in junior grades as well as the NRL...there's visibility, there's symbolism and the tribalism connected with that.

If the KOE side gets stripped to just Wests Tigers branding, Magpie fans will be left with nothing more than memories.
For the Magpies, it's not about wanting a statue or museum...it's about having 'something' still standing that says...We Were Here and We still Are.

So no, this isn't about clinging...it's about continuity.
You say people have moved on...I say many have adapted, but haven't forgotten where their roots are, unlike many on here saying 'the Magpies/Tigers mean nothing to me now', when in fact you still have a team called the Tigers to follow with Tigers colours.
There's a difference.

Symbols aren't sentimental clutter. They're the scaffolding of belonging.
Balmain Tigers have 90% of the scaffolding in place, with the miserly 10% left for the Magpies seemingly about to be pushed into a deep, dark, damp, dirty dungeon.

We can consolidate systems.
We can streamline pathways.
But let's not bulldoze identity on the way.

If Balmain's history gets a mention, then the Magpies deserve one too.
Not just in quiet boardroom minutes, but in colours, crests and culture.
That's not division...that's balance.

The Magpies Watchtower still stands...not to divide, but to guard what should never be erased.

If the goal is Unity, then respect is the starting line.
I'm happy to walk forward with anyone...but not by stepping over where we came from.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but Wests Tigers is it's own entity. It does not need to have "visibility" of the shareholders, but in any case, they have a huge unsightly magpie on the sleeve. Nothing to do with a "Tigers" brand.

No one has said anything about it, but if you remember, both clubs had their old logos on the back just under the neck line. Personally I thought it was a nice touch for both clubs because it acknowledges the history of how they came together. Nothing to do with ownership, just history. What you are saying is you want to rub the 90% ownership in everyones face and throw that weight around when it comes to club identity.

As an example, Wesfarmers owns Kmart, Coles, Priceline, Bunnings...the list goes on. Do you see the Wesfarmers identity in any of these businesses?

You're not a Wests Tigers supporter. You're a Magpies supporter that sees Wests Tigers as the second best option to support an NRL team.
 
weststigers said:
Excuse me, but Wests Tigers is it's own entity. It does not need to have "visibility" of the shareholders, but in any case, they have a huge unsightly magpie on the sleeve. Nothing to do with a "Tigers" brand.

No one has said anything about it, but if you remember, both clubs had their old logos on the back just under the neck line. Personally I thought it was a nice touch for both clubs because it acknowledges the history of how they came together. Nothing to do with ownership, just history. What you are saying is you want to rub the 90% ownership in everyones face and throw that weight around when it comes to club identity.

As an example, Wesfarmers owns Kmart, Coles, Priceline, Bunnings...the list goes on. Do you see the Wesfarmers identity in any of these businesses?

You're not a Wests Tigers supporter. You're a Magpies supporter that sees Wests Tigers as the second best option to support an NRL team.
Click to expand...
WOW!!!
 
Big Red said:
Great, so what’s your vision for Wests Tigers?
Click to expand...
I remember after winning the Premiership in 2005, there was hardly any talk about Wests or Balmain favouritism or having multiple home grounds for the next 5 or 6 years.
So that says if we win another Premiership hopefully soon, the Wests/Balmain banter will again diminish.
As for colours and what’s on our jersey, honestly I couldn’t care less if we changed our playing strip to pink with purple poker dots if we start winning more games than we lose.
 
weststigers said:
Excuse me, but Wests Tigers is it's own entity. It does not need to have "visibility" of the shareholders, but in any case, they have a huge unsightly magpie on the sleeve. Nothing to do with a "Tigers" brand.

No one has said anything about it, but if you remember, both clubs had their old logos on the back just under the neck line. Personally I thought it was a nice touch for both clubs because it acknowledges the history of how they came together. Nothing to do with ownership, just history. What you are saying is you want to rub the 90% ownership in everyones face and throw that weight around when it comes to club identity.

As an example, Wesfarmers owns Kmart, Coles, Priceline, Bunnings...the list goes on. Do you see the Wesfarmers identity in any of these businesses?

You're not a Wests Tigers supporter. You're a Magpies supporter that sees Wests Tigers as the second best option to support an NRL team.
Click to expand...
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
 
BZN said:
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but saying HBG own 90% and that should infiltrate the branding of the Wests Tigers is wrong on all levels. The brand is Wests Tigers. Particularly when they barely invest in the club compared to other owners in the league. We are not the 90% Wests Magpies Rugby League Club. We are Wests Tigers.

Wests would be dead without Balmain and you wouldn't have a club to talk this nonsense about. I'm shocked at what a knob you are being by throwing out ownership percentage, when Balmain saved Wests when they were on the bones of their ass.

You have an incredibly selective memory. Wake up to yourself.
 
BZN said:
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
Click to expand...
Where is the erasure? Last I checked there is no Balmain logo on the jersey anymore. You're talking about erasure?
 
BZN said:
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
Click to expand...
The Magpies legacy is acknowledged.
 
BZN said:
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
Click to expand...
So what exactly would you like to see changed BZN? With such strong convictions surely you must be able to articulate your solution?
 
BZN said:
Weststigers, I appreciate your candour.

But I think you've misunderstood what visibility means in this context.
No one's demanding a billboard.

We're talking about proportion...recognising the contribution of a stakeholder that continues to fund development, field teams, and form the backbone of junior pathways.

That's not "rubbing it in"...it's reminding people that this isn't a branding exercise, it's a JV.

You compared it to Wesfarmers owning retail brands.
But footy isn't retail...it's tribal, it's communal, and it's built on loyalty.
You can't equate club identity with commercial anonymity.
A club's soul isn't tucked away in holding structures...it's worn, waved, and carried by supporters who shaped it.

If that Magpie sleeve is "unsightly" to you, I respect your view.
But for many, it's the last stitch of recognition holding decades of pride together.

And you're right...I am a Magpie supporter.
That's my foundation.
But I have also supported Wests Tigers for 25 years.
Wanting balanced representation within that doesn't mean disloyalty.
It means I care enough to speak when I feel something is fading that still matters.

A JV shouldn't erase one half to appease comfort.
Visibility isn't dominance...it's acknowledgement.
And when legacy goes unacknowledged, that's when supporters feel pushed to the fringe.
Click to expand...
What would you like, what would you like to see done? Genuinely what would you like to happen to make you happy?
 
We should have two rounds a season, at LO and CSS where we play in the respective Tigers and Magpies jerseys.

Tribute rounds to our rich heritage and respect to our ancestoral fans of yore.

A contemporary connection.

It would be great. We’d pack the joints out. The homecoming.

As time marches on, the more value I see in honouring our past.
 
Last edited:
BAGNF05 said:
Maybe the solution is to go to CommBank full time but play one game at CSS in Magpies strip and one at LO in Balmain strip. Unless the grounds are upgraded fully of course.
Click to expand...
That would suit me personally actually.

Richo would be in corporate box heaven.

We could also mix it up. The Maggies at LO and Tigers at CSS. I’d still go to that and it would help mend the pain of merger for the olde guard. They’d have to support the side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,429 (members: 8, guests: 1,421)
Back
Top